-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Population control - do we need it?
- Thread starter MidnightFlyer
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
90019
Established Member
With good reason.
The one child policy, whilst it has positive effects in the short term, over the first couple of decades after introduction, starts causeing problems in the medium term, from about two decades after introduction. In the long term it may have it's positives, but it's not sustainable.
I would assume that this means you're unaware that it is required for some people to have more than 2 children to maintain a stable population.
And I assume you're not studying anything to do with human geography*, and don't understand the consequences of more people not having kids.
An ageing population causes a lot of problems in society. Thanks to the baby boomer generation, and the subsequent drop in birth rates, you're amongst those of us who will have to work longer and pay more taxes to support the older generations. If we encourage people to have less children now, then it will be the same situation when those of us who are currently young dependants eventually come to retire, with an increasingly small economically active population struggling to support both the young and old dependants.
Yes, population control is needed, but it needs to be a gradual thing, or we're going to cause more problems in the short to medium term than we solve in the long term.
*I'll have you know that Geography isn't just colouring in - it's polychromatic rendering
That's half of my life gone nearly! If it looked like in the film then I'd probably exile myself - Logans Run is set in the 23rd Century (I think) so we should have a colony on an extraterrestrial body by then.
Well, there's myself, Mrs Greenback, my brother, sister in law, parents...and more than a couple of forum members for a start!
Indeed China is facing a demographic nightmare in the next 10-20 years. There are going to millions of men who are not going to able to find wives and further to that there are going to millions and millions of adults trying to support themselves and their parents retirement (as China's pension schemes aren't really up to much).
China would have been better off repealing the one child policy in the late 80s or at the very least heading for a two child policy. To still have it in place now is going to cause them a lot of pain down the road.
See it's not much fun when people suggest you shouldn't be around anymore is it!
Actually, it does. I remember an article on the news recently about one of the IVF pioneers, and it claimed that one-hundred-thousand people had been born in this country because of IVF. That's 1/620th of the population, quite a significant fraction when you consider that these people might well have children themselves. Would it not be better to increase adoption rates rather than this, since that would still allow people to bring up children, yet not contribute to the overpopulation problem.
If someone can't have children, tough. We have to think of the greater good here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thinking a century ahead, it may well have done its job by now. The overall population growth rate is controlled by the number of females. Take Elephants, which generally have one calf every four years or so. Therefore, one cow Elephant can produce a maximum of ten calves in a 40-year reproductive life (about average). A bull Elephant is not limited by such factors, he can father as many calves as there are females available, although that is limited by the musth cycle which he goes through. A rough estimate would be 50-100.
Now apply that to China. With the notable dip in the percentage of girls surviving to adulthood and the unbalanced population, the population will still be going down even if the one-child policy is stopped. It will only stabilise in about 2050 even if stopped now. I think the required average for a stable population is 2.1 children per family (allowing for some people who die childless) so a two-child policy will still produce a slow reduction.
That sounds about right to me. I think we need a fast reduction (ie. a one child policy) for a reletivly small number of years to start with, followed by a move to a two child policy for a continued (very slow) reduction after that. The 2.1 child per family suituation might be the result anyway with a 2 child policy, as I doubt very much whether 100% enforcment would be possible.
And I will say again thanks for insuring that people like myself will never be born. IVF is a good thing and I would oppose any suggestion that it should be banned outright (though I'm happy to discuss limiting its use to the production of only one or two children per female).
43106
Member
I've been thinking about the population of the planet for a few years, and I've discovered a few facts along the way...
1) China has had a 'one child' policy for years, >35 I think. I know that if a family's first born is twins or triplets, assuming it's not an IVF birth, it isn't frowned upon by the authorities, as it's considered a 'natural accident' or something like that. I can't remember how they 'deal' with a family if there is a second birth - no child benefit??? I was told, but I've forgotton.
2) A Pope (can't recall which one, but it was probably Paul VI) said that the world MUST have a rising population. I don't know why, but I reckon he's wrong, whatever his arguement is. It explains why he forbids artificial birth control.
3) About 10 years ago, someone did a study to determine the 'optimum population' of all the countries of the world, based on resources. She/he deduced that the population of Britain (Eng + Sco + Wal + NI) should be 35 million. Currently, it's a whisker over 60 million.
If I had my way...
A) I'd ban ALL imigration from ALL countries, including member states of the EEC. I don't see why this country should be an overflow for other over-populated countries,
B) I'd ban Child Benefit for ALL children born out of wedlock. I don't see why I should sponsor drunken teenagers who can't keep their legs shut, or can't keep their 'gentleman's sausage' inside their trousers.
C) I'd follow the Chinese model and (try to) restrict the number of births per couple, but I don't know how to enforce this.
D) If you allow yourself to be sterilised, i.e. a vasectomy for men, or tubes tied for females (a hysterectomy causes too much peripheral damage), then you should be financially rewarded. (Joke - you could sell this idea to married couples as 'her and histerectomies!' Well, I laughed!)
I have to say that I don't have any kids, nor do I want any. I find them to be a pain in the gluteus maximus. They cost a blood fortune to run and they cause too many problems, technical as well as emotional ones. So at least I'm doing my bit.....or rather, I'm not!
1) China has had a 'one child' policy for years, >35 I think. I know that if a family's first born is twins or triplets, assuming it's not an IVF birth, it isn't frowned upon by the authorities, as it's considered a 'natural accident' or something like that. I can't remember how they 'deal' with a family if there is a second birth - no child benefit??? I was told, but I've forgotton.
2) A Pope (can't recall which one, but it was probably Paul VI) said that the world MUST have a rising population. I don't know why, but I reckon he's wrong, whatever his arguement is. It explains why he forbids artificial birth control.
3) About 10 years ago, someone did a study to determine the 'optimum population' of all the countries of the world, based on resources. She/he deduced that the population of Britain (Eng + Sco + Wal + NI) should be 35 million. Currently, it's a whisker over 60 million.
If I had my way...
A) I'd ban ALL imigration from ALL countries, including member states of the EEC. I don't see why this country should be an overflow for other over-populated countries,
B) I'd ban Child Benefit for ALL children born out of wedlock. I don't see why I should sponsor drunken teenagers who can't keep their legs shut, or can't keep their 'gentleman's sausage' inside their trousers.
C) I'd follow the Chinese model and (try to) restrict the number of births per couple, but I don't know how to enforce this.
D) If you allow yourself to be sterilised, i.e. a vasectomy for men, or tubes tied for females (a hysterectomy causes too much peripheral damage), then you should be financially rewarded. (Joke - you could sell this idea to married couples as 'her and histerectomies!' Well, I laughed!)
I have to say that I don't have any kids, nor do I want any. I find them to be a pain in the gluteus maximus. They cost a blood fortune to run and they cause too many problems, technical as well as emotional ones. So at least I'm doing my bit.....or rather, I'm not!
Nice stereotyping :roll:
However ignoring that what about those couples that decided not get married but want to have kids? They live together unmarried but have kids are you going to punish them for this choice?
I wonder who will look after 41306 when he has to go into an old folks' home - or who will pay the taxes to fund his pension (note - the money 41306 pays in taxes now pays for current pensioners, it's not put into a pot for use later).
I favour population control but we do need SOME kids if we are not to avoid a "Children of Men" scenario!
I favour population control but we do need SOME kids if we are not to avoid a "Children of Men" scenario!
SS4
Established Member
That's simple, our generation has to work until the day we drop dead.
So what are you trying to achieve by reducing the population, less resource use? Often these sorts of things are aimed at 3rd world population (and admittedly some countries, such as Ethopia are beyond their carrying capacity). The problem with this argument is people in those countries use the least resources, sometimes 10-20 times or more less resources than Westerners.
The people who use the most resources are those that tend to live in sprawling suburbs, often in arid areas, have 2-3 cars per household and are frequent flyers. They live in large homes, that require a lot of heating and water, and often consume the most food, especially red meats. For example, those that live in southern part of the United States.
In the UK, it tends to be middle class, middle age people. Again who have several cars, take frequent holidays and buy a lot of consumer goods. This group yield the most monetary and political power, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas!
In Western countries, we tend to have very low population growth, even taking immigration into account. A better educated population tends to have less children, as they do not need to support themselves on the land.
The principal problem is there are an ever burgeoning older population that is often not economically active and requires the most government resources - especially health. This needs to be supported by a much younger working population, which is not growing fast enough to support the elderly.
The other problem with all these population/resource issues, is it's always somebody else's population that needs to be reduced, and people do not see themselves as a problem. Nor do they see a problem with unbridled consumption of goods and services, in fact they often construct an argument population should be reduced so they can continue their ways indefinitely and the poor (who consume far less, home and abroad) should suffer. It really does get as low key as car ownership versus giving birth.
The whole issue of carrying capacity is hotly debated, and many issues are counter intuitive. For example, people in cities tend to consume less resources (directly and indirectly) than those in country areas, yet often the idea is pushed that it's the cities that are unsustainable.
It's not that exponential growth is not a problem, it is, but how to take it is a very difficult thing to approach morally, economically and politically. Politicians and Economists typically rely on technology and education for fixes. The question is, will there be enough technological breakthroughs in time to avert disaster, and will the natural birthrate continue to decline enough to stabilise the population versus supporting an elderly population.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Baby Boomers (those born 1945-1965) probably had it the best in general, it's becoming pretty evident that the generations that follow will be retiring later, will have to work harder, pay more for the basics, especially housing, and social mobility has pretty much stopped - although of course in some ways it's relative, and today's poor are comparatively rich by 1950s standards. Quite a few books have been written on the subject including:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jilted-Generation-Britain-Bankrupted-Youth/dp/1848311982/ref=pd_sim_b_1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future-Should/dp/1848872321/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-did-baby-boomers-ever/dp/1849540268/ref=pd_sim_b_1
The people who use the most resources are those that tend to live in sprawling suburbs, often in arid areas, have 2-3 cars per household and are frequent flyers. They live in large homes, that require a lot of heating and water, and often consume the most food, especially red meats. For example, those that live in southern part of the United States.
In the UK, it tends to be middle class, middle age people. Again who have several cars, take frequent holidays and buy a lot of consumer goods. This group yield the most monetary and political power, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas!
In Western countries, we tend to have very low population growth, even taking immigration into account. A better educated population tends to have less children, as they do not need to support themselves on the land.
The principal problem is there are an ever burgeoning older population that is often not economically active and requires the most government resources - especially health. This needs to be supported by a much younger working population, which is not growing fast enough to support the elderly.
The other problem with all these population/resource issues, is it's always somebody else's population that needs to be reduced, and people do not see themselves as a problem. Nor do they see a problem with unbridled consumption of goods and services, in fact they often construct an argument population should be reduced so they can continue their ways indefinitely and the poor (who consume far less, home and abroad) should suffer. It really does get as low key as car ownership versus giving birth.
The whole issue of carrying capacity is hotly debated, and many issues are counter intuitive. For example, people in cities tend to consume less resources (directly and indirectly) than those in country areas, yet often the idea is pushed that it's the cities that are unsustainable.
It's not that exponential growth is not a problem, it is, but how to take it is a very difficult thing to approach morally, economically and politically. Politicians and Economists typically rely on technology and education for fixes. The question is, will there be enough technological breakthroughs in time to avert disaster, and will the natural birthrate continue to decline enough to stabilise the population versus supporting an elderly population.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Baby Boomers (those born 1945-1965) probably had it the best in general, it's becoming pretty evident that the generations that follow will be retiring later, will have to work harder, pay more for the basics, especially housing, and social mobility has pretty much stopped - although of course in some ways it's relative, and today's poor are comparatively rich by 1950s standards. Quite a few books have been written on the subject including:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jilted-Generation-Britain-Bankrupted-Youth/dp/1848311982/ref=pd_sim_b_1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future-Should/dp/1848872321/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-did-baby-boomers-ever/dp/1849540268/ref=pd_sim_b_1
Last edited:
90019
Established Member
As I mentioned previously, the one child policy isn't all it's cracked up to be, and for all the time it's happening and for decades after will have negative consequences on the economically active section of the population.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that there are only people immigrating to this country. There is plenty emigration to counter the immigration.
And what about all of those couples who don't want to get married?
Basically, you want to force a religious ceremony on those who want to have children.
The Chinese model is not a good one to follow. It would likely put a lot of strain on our already fragile economy.
You don't seem to understand that a sharp population fall and the subsequent aging population is not a good thing.
What you want is a stable population, or a slowly falling one if it is currently too high, otherwise you're just going to cause more problems than you solve.
Indeed, you're not doing your bit.
What you're doing is forcing more responsibility and greater financial strain on those of the younger generations who will have to pay for you when you retire.
It's all very well saying we should just have less children to reduce our population, but it's not that simple. If you just do that then you end up with huge economical problems a few decades down the line, many of which will affect you directly. I mean, who will pay your pension if there aren't enough economically active people to support the relatively huge old dependant population?
People are already having to work longer and retire later to support the old dependants since people are living longer and using more money in their old age.
Perhaps it's a residual element of my Communist days, I try to avoid considering individuals when the whole population is under threat - from itself in this case. I simply think of it as a matter of hitting the target (in this case a 50% population cut) by the most efficient means possible. If I have caused any offence, I apologise, I can be somewhat forthright in my language sometimes. However, please remember that I, along with the majority here, are arguing that many, many people should not be born. Two of my cousins are third children, and they would not exist under a two-child policy. Are there any third children here who would also be in the same position as yourself or them?
Indeed, I am a #3, from the 50s. May I light-heartedly introduce an "unforeseen consequence"? It is widely held in the third-child community that, perhaps because of our position in the family, third children are quirkier, more rebellious, and more likely to see things from a different perspective (works for me!). If we were to adopt a 2-child rule, would this not stifle the sort of innovation that society needs? Now first and second children, they are a different question, as society also needs its conformists. Perhaps we should all be encouraged to have three children, but then find some way of disposing of an extraneous 1st or 2nd child?
thefab444
Established Member
I think we've got enough of that already!
Anyway, I'm generally apathetic towards IVF, simply because people should just accept that they can't have children rather than getting obsessed about "having a baby", that is how they are intended to be. There is already far too much "I want, I want" in today's society. There are, in my opinion, considerably more important scientific and medical pursuits in need of time and investment than IVF.
I think it might be a more realistic idea to reduce the rate of population growth rather than aim to reduce the population. If this means an ageing population, with fewer young people, then we need to accept that this may be a necessary evil. At least in years to come there will be fewer old people, and less middle aged people to use up the few resources that may be left!
I also think that we all need to accept that one of the consequences of living longer is that we will all need to work for longer too. Sixty years ago, most working men would have left school at 15 and expected to work for 45-50 years before retirement (if they lioved that long).
Nowadays, with the vast majority of the population remaining in full time education for longer and longer, a lot of the population don't enter the world of full time work until much later. Given this, and with a life expectancy that is 20 years greater today, it is hardly surprising that working lives should extend past the 60/65 that used to be the norm.
Previous generations have had to put with a great deal; world wars, lethal influenza, rationing, depression, typhoid etc etc, it just may be that the generations of tomorrow will have to make sacrifices too.
I also think that we all need to accept that one of the consequences of living longer is that we will all need to work for longer too. Sixty years ago, most working men would have left school at 15 and expected to work for 45-50 years before retirement (if they lioved that long).
Nowadays, with the vast majority of the population remaining in full time education for longer and longer, a lot of the population don't enter the world of full time work until much later. Given this, and with a life expectancy that is 20 years greater today, it is hardly surprising that working lives should extend past the 60/65 that used to be the norm.
Previous generations have had to put with a great deal; world wars, lethal influenza, rationing, depression, typhoid etc etc, it just may be that the generations of tomorrow will have to make sacrifices too.
TackerUK
Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 70
What we need is a nice little war
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
They cull deer, don't they?
How do you reduce energy consumption though? If you use a price lever then the people that often use the most energy will just continue as they will be able to afford it and the poorer people could end up with bills they can't afford even with their lower use.
SS4
Established Member
A volumetric cap per person would be the most effective. Of course this is essentially rationing but there could be very stiff financial penalties for going over, like the phone companies do when you exceed your contracted minutes.
The general issue with financial penalties on children is that the rich can continue to have kids and suddenly we're back in Victorian times. A population full of Tories is the stuff of nightmares.
SS4
Established Member
That is true but at least it provides more money for the Treasury. Could we as country square rationing energy in times of peace and still enjoy the freedoms we have now?
There is nothing more I'd love then to tax the super rich and give it to the poor yet we can't afford to drive them abroad.
90019
Established Member
The problem with that is that you have to take into consideration each individuals needs and work it out from there, with regular updating needed as circumstances change, which would almost certainly be an administrative nightmare.
- Status